Geoff Olynyk
New Member
Came here to post exactly this haha
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Came here to post exactly this haha
allengeorge
Senior Member
I thought there was no longer a need for the terraced design in Toronto?
Northern Light
Superstar
1) The Angular Plane (terraced design) is still on the books as City policy, however, no longer being 'enforced' across the board, indeed multiple sections of Planning are just not interested in it. Its formal abolition is coming, soon. However, it will be replaced with some new, more flexible and less onerous measures (I haven't seen these yet)
2) This is not a typical site for angular plane and I don't think that's what you're seeing here. This is on the immediate south side of a park. A 7s street wall/podium would definitely shadow a good deal of the park. I expect you're seeing a design that minimizes shadow on the park and increases the desirability of the residential units in the process. But I haven't had any discussions w/the proponent on that, it's merely my best guess.
Last edited:
AreaResident#20+
New Member
View of the south side of the project lot, Sears and Brick.
The subject site, looking south and west.
The subject site, looking south and west.
Last edited by a moderator:
AlbertC
Superstar
Alright let's get this property urbanized ASAP!
LUVIT!
Senior Member
Now I'm curious about the junk yard south across Sears Street. It can get very loud at times and is very close to this property.
C
christiesplits
Guest
Consultation scheduled for next Wednesday evening.
toronto.webex.com
Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.
Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Lots of NEWS on this site from tonight's public meeting..!
City slides, first...
Full-House on the Business-Side of the table...
Already appealed to the OLT... assuming because they expect a Neighbour's $400 OLT appeal to be certain to happen; unavoidable later in the process. So, they might as well get this project on the OLT case-management wait-list now.
Neighbouring sites have been assembled, @Northern Light...!
Yellow-Belt Uber Alles!
Revised Submission, wherein Sanity prevails..!
ZOOMED
Wherein, the thing at the BOTTOM of the City Planner's list of Issues should be the thing at the TOP of the City's List of issues... (Le Sigh)
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
DEVELOPER Intro slides...
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-CHANGES..!
ZOOM into the "Proposal Highlights" that matter to us...
YELLOW-BELT to ORANGE flip...?
Not sure why not just going with MIXED..?
ZOOM...
4-Bedroom units..?
No average Sq Ft per unit-type (*yet)
Maybe it's just my Monitor... but I'mma not sure about this "Gumby & Pokey" colour scheme..?
Why can't they just do ALL one colour --- or at least something in the same palette..?
ZOOM into the "Proposal Highlights" that matter to us...
YELLOW-BELT to ORANGE flip...?
Not sure why not just going with MIXED..?
ZOOM...
4-Bedroom units..?
No average Sq Ft per unit-type (*yet)
Maybe it's just my Monitor... but I'mma not sure about this "Gumby & Pokey" colour scheme..?
Why can't they just do ALL one colour --- or at least something in the same palette..?
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
For the younger folks - "Gumby & Pokey" were big back in the days before Computer-Animation...
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Next 45-minutes of Speakers was mostly a "NIMBY greatest-hits" show about -
- PARKING
- OVERLOOK
- SHADOWS
- TOO BIG
- TOO BULKY
- DOUG FORD
- WE WERE PROMISED TOWNHOUSES ON THIS SITE
- THIS WILL DESTROY THE COMMUNITY
I spoke-up in favour of the development (and the Affordable-Rental), and lost my cool with the "...Destroy the Community... " guy ... which upset the City Staff.
MNTO caller also spoke in favour.
Project now heads off to the OLT sometime into 2024...
- PARKING
- OVERLOOK
- SHADOWS
- TOO BIG
- TOO BULKY
- DOUG FORD
- WE WERE PROMISED TOWNHOUSES ON THIS SITE
- THIS WILL DESTROY THE COMMUNITY
I spoke-up in favour of the development (and the Affordable-Rental), and lost my cool with the "...Destroy the Community... " guy ... which upset the City Staff.
MNTO caller also spoke in favour.
Project now heads off to the OLT sometime into 2024...
Northern Light
Superstar
You called that one.
***
Because of the new precedents on Eastern, and because of buying up everything between the 2 lanes excepting the City's block I think they can now justify the 7s in Building B which makes eminent sense (assuming the price was right, which I assume it was).
The list above isn't ranked in order of priority. It doesn't work that way. They are following the report template. Items not listed in the format go at the end.
Building height/massing etc always come first, because that's the way the application reports are structured.
If you look at the Planning Report (application), you'll see the order is structured exactly the same way. The Planner has no discretion. It makes it easier when you're reading the report to match A to A and B to B.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I think I'll summon @innsertnamehere for the explanation.
**
A couple of bits from the Planning Report addendum:
"As a result of the increased site area, the plans have
been revised to replace Building B from a 4-storey building to a second 7-storey
building. To accommodate this change, and in recognition of the fact that the site now
occupies the entirety of the block bounded by Maple Leaf Forever Park, Laing Street,
Sears Streets and the unnamed public lane to the west, we have revised the proposed
OPA to propose the redesignation of the lands from Neighbourhoods to Apartment
Neighbourhoods. The proposed OPA would also continue to permit development
notwithstanding Policy 3.4(5) of this Plan and Sections 2.58 and 2.68 of the former
City of Toronto Official Plan."
In this proposal:
Studios range, generally from 25m2 - 31m2
1bdrm range, generally from 40m2-49m2
2 bdrm range, generally from 64m2 - 67m2
3 bedrooms range far more widely than the other types, as little as 57m to as much as 105m2
I only counted 2 4bdrm units, one is 85m2, the other 110m2.
The slide above the rendering provides one of the two answers.
1) Local context. The idea being the building facing Laing (which will still provide the illusion of 4 storeys is meant to blend in with the remaining SFH across the street in scale and material palette
2) The City encourages 'breaking up the massing' they want the building to seem too overwhelming, so changing colour/material to make the 2 buildings feel distinct is a thing.
I get what thy are trying to do here. I think in the original proposal it made some sense, with the shorter, smaller building B, and 2 houses remaining facing Laing within the lane to lane block.
At this point, I don't think it's all that necessary, and I personally like the green better than the red, and see no harm from the 'context' point of view with extending it out.
The Massing idea is actually sound, we talk about it here quite often; but I don't think its necessary here, because of the scale/massing of the overall proposal. I don't think the average person would find it overwhelming in a single colour palette.
I confess, the Christmas contrast of green to red/orange is a bit much.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Link to the AIC files:
app.toronto.ca
Changes made in the July submission:
(From the Cover Letter)
**
***
From the Planning Report Addendum:
****
Comments: ": I like it"
- Good architecture overall (some interior units sizes are a bit small, but c'est la vie)
- The extended park is a consolidated extension which makes it more usable and which improves access to the space (the park is less hidden)
- No increase in parking, still 16 spaces, so very transit/pedestrian forward.
- Good contextual massing.
- I do agree w/ @HousingNowTO than the contrasting colours of buildings A and B are a bit much here, I'd go green all the way now. I 100% understand what they were trying to do, and I think it was the right choice in the earlier iteration, but to me it doesn't make as much sense now. Though, it's certainly not a deal breaker, just a preference.
Application Details
app.toronto.ca
Changes made in the July submission:
(From the Cover Letter)
**
***
From the Planning Report Addendum:
****
Comments: ": I like it"
- Good architecture overall (some interior units sizes are a bit small, but c'est la vie)
- The extended park is a consolidated extension which makes it more usable and which improves access to the space (the park is less hidden)
- No increase in parking, still 16 spaces, so very transit/pedestrian forward.
- Good contextual massing.
- I do agree w/ @HousingNowTO than the contrasting colours of buildings A and B are a bit much here, I'd go green all the way now. I 100% understand what they were trying to do, and I think it was the right choice in the earlier iteration, but to me it doesn't make as much sense now. Though, it's certainly not a deal breaker, just a preference.
Last edited: